Disposed

Radhakisan Appa Kasar v. Tahasildar Sangamner and Others

Bombay HC21 Aug 2017WP/2034/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with a writ petition regarding a petitioner's claim for permanent allotment of disputed alluvial land. The court directed the Tahsildar to determine the application after hearing all parties, and to transfer the matter to the Collector if the land exceeds 40 R, while discharging pending civil applications.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Tahsildar to decide the representation on alluvial land allotment after hearing, or transfer to Collector if area exceeds 40 R.

Radhakisan Appa Kasar Vs Tahasildar Sangamner and Others — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

wp 2034.17.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2034 OF 2017

¶5

Radhakisan S/o Appa Kasar Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Tahsildar, Sangamner and others Respondents

¶8

Mr. V.J. Dixit Sr. advocate I/b Mr.S.V. Dixit advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for Respondents Mr. A.S. Bajaj advocate for intervenor

¶9

¶10

CORAM : R. M. BORDE & S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶11

(Date: August 21, 2017)

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

1 Heard.

¶14

2 The petitioner contends that, he is in possession of alluvial land, which is adjacent to the landed property admeasuring 38 R situated on eastern side of survey No.35(1/1/1/1) in village Ghulewadi, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. The petitioner has been allotted alluvial land under the orders issued by the Tahsildar and that the petitioner is possession of the said land. It is further contended that, by passage of time, the area of alluvial land has increased. The petitioner has tendered an application for permanent allotment of alluvial land, which is in his possession and the said application/representation is pending. The petitioner further contends that, since the alluvial land is

¶15

{2} wp 2034.17.odt

¶16

more than 40 R, application for allotment needs to be dealt with by the Collector. It is also submitted that, appropriate direction need to be issued to measure the said portion of the land. If the alluvial land is found to be more than 40R, the application/representation tendered by the petitioner to the Tahsidlar shall have to be forwarded for decision to the Collector.

¶17

3 It has been contended by one Mathurabai Bhausaheb Sevabhavi Trust Amrutnagar through its Managing Trustee Mr. H.S. Tambe, seeking intervention in the matter that, the land in possession of the petitioner is not alluvial land and the same belongs to the intervenor. The intervenor objects for the permanent allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner.

¶18

4 It would not be appropriate for concerned authorities to investigate into the factual aspects for deciding the controversy arising in the matter. It would be within the competence of the Revenue Authorities i.e. the Tahsildar and the Collector to enquire into the relevant aspects i.e. nature of land, extent thereof and entitlement of the petitioner to claim permanent allotment. Since the petitioner has already moved a representation on 7.1.2016 to the Tahsidlar, seeking permanent allotment, it would be appropriate for Tahsidlar to consider the issues, after extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as

¶19

wp 2034.17.odt

¶20

{3}

¶21

well as the intervenor.

¶22

5 In the circumstances, we direct the Tahsidlar to deal with the representation tendered by the petitioner on 17.1.2016 and decide the same, after extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the intervenor, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. If at all, Tahsidlar deems it appropriate, it would be open for him to direct measurement of the land. If the land in question exceeds area of 40R, it would be open for the Tahsildar to transfer the Application for determination to the Collector and it shall be responsibility of the Collector to deal with the application and decide the entitlement of the petitioner, after extending opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶23

6 With the directions as above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

7 In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending Civil applications do not survive and stand dispose of.

¶25

(S. M. GAVHANE, J) (R. M. BORDE, J)

¶26

vbd

Radhakisan Appa Kasar v. Tahasildar Sangamner and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakisan Appa Kasar v. Tahasildar Sangamner and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Sitaram Patil Vs Yuvraj Chudaman Badgujar and Others

Jalna District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. through Its Authorized Officer R M Thote Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Deepak Baliram Badwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanyukta Subhash Akoskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramdas Bhanudas Gandal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Royal Carrier and Courier Pvt. Ltd. through Its M D Ishwarlal Laxmandas Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others